186
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
186 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3318 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I had been using gargoyle on my routers, but even the gigabit routers were limiting my speed. I just got a new tplink router that afaik is not compatible with openwrt. Maybe I need to look again at their compatibility list and switch.
This is stupid. Their justification is an "unusual degree of vulnerabilities."
So why not outlaw vulnerabilities? Impose real fines or jail time, or at the very least a civil liability that can't be waived be EULA. Better than an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Why not?
Well…
It discourages self-reporting, makes vendors hostile to security researchers, opens the door to endless litigation over whose component actually “caused” a vulnerability… encourages CYA culture (like following a third-party spec you know is bad rather than making a good first-party one, because it guarantees blame will fall on another party)
In a complex system with tight coupling, failure is normal, so you want to have a good way to monitor and remedy failure rather than trying to prevent 100% of it. The last thing you wanna do is encourage people to be hostile to failure-monitoring.
(See also: Normal Accident theory)
So why not outlaw vulnerabilities?
Of course! If we make vulnerabilities illegal, then all the programmers will make perfect software! The solution was so easy!
There is definitely a difference in quality when talking about import software.
Also, "outlawing vulnerabilities" would not mean to simply assume everyone starts making perfectly secure software, but rather that you're fined if you can't prove your processes are up to spec and you adhered to best practices during development. Additionally, vendors are obliged to maintain their software and keep it secure.
And surprise, surprise, the EU ratified laws that do exactly that (and more) recently. In fact, they'll be in effect very soon:
Because the NSA, CIA, and FBI love them. Vault 7, Magic Lantern, Intel ME and AMD PSP, Dual elliptic curve, COTTONMOUTH-I, ANT/TAO catalog, etc.
Hell, Microsoft willingly reports vulnerabilities and exploits to the government for them to use.
North Korea wishes it had this level of control on the goods its citizens willingly buy.
Outlaw vulnerabilities? Do they just get little virtual handcuffs when they're found? If I find a Microsoft vulnerability I get arrested? Not sure I'm following this one.
Edit: it's really obvious most of you haven't worked in infosec.
When WannaCry was a major threat to cybersecurity, shutting down banks and hospitals, it was found that it used a backdoor Microsoft intentionally kept open for governments to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WannaCry_ransomware_attack
EternalBlue is an exploit of Microsoft's implementation of their Server Message Block (SMB) protocol released by The Shadow Brokers. Much of the attention and comment around the event was occasioned by the fact that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) (from whom the exploit was likely stolen) had already discovered the vulnerability, but used it to create an exploit for its own offensive work, rather than report it to Microsoft.[15][16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue
EternalBlue[5] is a computer exploit software developed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).[6] It is based on a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that allowed users to gain access to any number of computers connected to a network. The NSA knew about this vulnerability but did not disclose it to Microsoft for several years, since they planned to use it as a defense mechanism against cyber attacks.
In real life, if I do not prevent someone from doing a crime that I am aware of was premeditated, I am guilty of not doing my duty. Corporations are people thanks to Citizens United, and governments are ran by people, so uphold them to the same standards they subject the populace to.
Well. Your sources don't say Microsoft kept it. They say NSA didn't report it to Microsoft so that they would be able to keep using it.
If you are Microsoft, then yeah. You'd go to jail when a Windows vulnerability is found.
In all seriousness though: it would be more likely to be just a civil penalty, or a fine. If we did want corporate jail sentences, there are a few ways to do it. These are not specific to my proposal about software vulnerabilities being crimes; it's about corporate accountability in general.
First, a corporation could have a central person in charge of ethical decisions. They would go to prison when the corporation was convicted of a jailable offense. They would be entitled to know all the goings on in the company, and hit the emergency stop button for absolutely anything whenever they saw a legal problem. This is obviously a huge change in how things work, and not something that could be implemented any time soon in the US because of how much Congress loves corporations, and because of how many crimes a company commits on a daily basis.
Second, a corporation could be "jailed" for X days by fining them X/365 of their annual profit. This calculation would need to counter clever accounting tricks. For example some companies (like Amazon, I've heard) never pay dividends, and might list their profit as zero because they reinvest all the profit into expanding the company. So the criminal fine would take into account some types of expenditures.
Presumably that, once exploited, vulnerabilities are an offense that the DOJ can fine the company for. I think that’s quite reasonable.
I'd go further, an unpatched vulnerability is offense that the DOJ can fine the company for
Sounds fair enough to me.
Then you'd have to also go after Cisco.
What routers are trustable?
The ones that you build yourself and load with free & open source software. Basically any x86 PC or even ARM SBCs like the Raspberry Pi can work as a router, as long as you have 2 separate network interfaces. There are quite a few FOSS router/firewall operating systems like OpenWRT, dd-wrt, pfSense and OPNSense (my personal favorite). If you don't want to do this yourself, there are companies like Protectli that offer dedicated pre-built hardware that's ensured to be compatible with pfSense/OPNSense and comes Coreboot pre-installed.
Shameless plug - MikroTik
+1 for MikroTik, they're based in the EU (Riga, Latvia to be precise) and have a really good reputation. And they're really cheap, while offering many features that can otherwise only be found on Cisco enterprise equipment.
I've been using DD-WRT for many years and just moved to OpenWRT. Although there have been various generic vulnerabilities that effected all IP devices and needed to be patched on these platforms too, I can't remember a single vulnerability that was specific to either DD-WRT or OpenWRT.
I use Linksys myself as I originally heard that they're pretty up there in security, but I've heard from a few people that they're not as good as they used to be. I'm only a cybersec hobbiest and haven't been a customer for long, so I couldn't tell you much more.
If you're not afraid of picking up a wrench yourself:
I just switched to an OPNSense router on protectli hardware.
You don't have to use something like that to use OPNSense though, you can just put it on nearly any old machine with a couple of nics. The out of the box config isn't terrible and you can find a ton of guides on how to set yourself up securely.
Any of this work on mesh systems?
Whatever one the NSA has compromised
American Alphabet Soup backdoors good, Non-American Alphabet Soup backdoors bad.
We could just ban the idea "companies that have open vulnerabilities for corporate and government use" but that would benefit every citizen of every nation, so no.
If there's a backdoor for the FBI, there's nothing to stop Russia and China to also not use it. Same for a Chinese backdoor, nothing to prevent America from figuring it out. It's why China bans American companies, and we're phasing out Russian and Chinese companies.
It's impossible for an open door to know who's using it, and keys for a closed one can be copied and leaked. The safest way to garuntee noone else uses a backdoor, is to not have a backdoor.
Son of a bitch. I just bought a TP-Link Omada wireless access point. I wonder if they’re in the same category. The article doesn’t go into that level of detail.
Yeah I’ve got a handful of switches and a WAP from them… I somehow never realized they were out of the PRC. Will probably shift away from their stuff now.
Just load them with openwrt and enjoy
You might want to look up the Openwrt support for popular Deco and Omada devices before suggesting that ... ?
My router is custom-built; it’s just the WAP and a couple of switches that are TP-Link, one of which is managed.
Laughs in OpenWRT
Giggles nervously in pfsense but TP-Link Omada WAPs
Chuckles uncertainly in OpenWRT running on TP-Link
In a statement cited by Reuters, TP-Link reportedly claimed that it does not sell routers in the U.S. In May, the company announced it had “completed a global restructuring” and that TP-Link Corporation Group — with headquarters in Irvine, California and Singapore — and TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. in China are “standalone entities.”
Lol